Slashdot Mirror
New York Court Says Telecommuters Must Pay NY Tax
hal9000(jr) writes "The Boston Globe is running this
story on an out-of-state programmer working for a New York company who had to pay state taxes. '"New York has the right to tax 100% of a nonresident employee's income derived from New York sources," according to
the 4-3 decision by Court of Appeals. The court relied on a fairness rule called the "convenience of the employer" under law that says a worker's income is taxable if he chooses to live outside the state, as opposed to if he or
she was transferred there.' The dissenting opinion: 'Judge Robert Smith argued that the basis of the majority's decision that all income is taxable is "that the commissioner says it is ... The majority cites no authority at all, and offers no persuasive reason, in support of this new interpretation."'"
He will get taxed the NY Income Tax AND where he is currently located? That would suck.
By the same logic, it's for my (and all my coworkers') convenience that the Delaware based media company I work for's main office is in NYC and therefore I should ask NYS for a refund for the past 4 years. This is a dangerous precedent. -Mike
Give me the right to vote, and I'll pay your damn taxes. Till then, up yours. I've got tea, you've got a harbor.
So does that mean that he doesn't get to keep any of his money? ;)
Seems like a very badly ambiguous way of putting it.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
I also think this is going to get appealed to the Federal courts. I live in Texas and work for a company that has an office here, but is headquartered in Massachussettes. I can't imagine paying MA income taxes, but it sounds like this court ruling says that I should (assuming the MA courts rule the same way).
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
.. lets just have everyone pay tax in every state, just in case.
air and light and time and space
So what if, hypothetically, I live in NY and telecommute to Florida? That should mean that 100% of my income is [i]non[/i]taxible by the state of NY, right?
Or is the rule just "if we want your money, we can take it"?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
The government rules they can tax yet more of our money.
Typically you pay a portion of taxes for the time you spent in each state. If you spend 50% of your time in each of two states, they usually have you pay 50% of your taxes in each. But that's if you are PHYSICALLY there.
This sounds as if you could end up paying full income tax in the state your company is in, plus full taxes in your own state - because your local state will consider you a full-time resident (since you do live there full time).
Not only that, but . . . how is New York offering him any representation for the taxes he pays there? He isn't a resident. He doesn't use their services. He doesn't commute. He doesn't have anything to do with anything there - other than it is where his employer is based.
For that matter, shouldn't companies overseas who contract with American companies to provide, say - tech support - have to pay American federal income taxes? I don't see how that would be any different from this scenerio whatsoever...
I'd sure hate to be stuck paying 56% in state income taxes, before even coming to my federal and county income taxes!
Topic says it all, and it's not rhetorical. I'm really curious about this.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
As long as I am only taxed in one state. Last year I was taxed in 2 states because my residence was listed in one and I worked in the other. But now that I want to file a refund to get that money back in one or the other, neither will want to give me anything back.
My wife telecommutes from OH to CA. We lived in CO for half the year, and she pays state tax in all three. Yeah, her company isn't too happy about it either. States are like sharks these days with your paycheck...but that is for another topic!
Do these have to pay the same taxes aswell?
this from the state that raised cigarette taxes then went after people getting them out of state. if the music industry needs to look at its business model, governments need to look at their taxation model - both a looking for all the cash they can get.
always mosh clockwise
So, if you're a New York company that hires programmers, consider relocating (either in toto or a subsidiary) to Texas, where your dollar goes further, and you get to keep more of it.
We have BBQ, TexMex, and sane gun laws (i.e., the law-abiding can own one). What we lack: 3 months of snow, subways, and george Steinbrenner.
Up to you.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
I moved out there from the Bay area 10 years ago.
I was getting 150K yr, but found 68% of my income went to taxes!
The City tax was higher then my federal!
My take home after everything was $3500 a month. I couldn't make ends meet and all in all lost over $30K in the move there and move back + the operating at a loss the whole time I was there.
With this new tax rull people who commute from New Jersey would end up paying taxes to two states!
I am so glad to be in California...
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
I think the dissenting judge's opinion in the matter is interesting:
... The majority cites no authority at all, and offers no persuasive reason, in support of this new interpretation."
In a strong dissent, Judge Robert Smith argued that the basis of the majority's decision that all income is taxable is "that the commissioner says it is
I live in California and just took a contract position with a company in New York. This ruling does not say anything about contractors vs. employees, but knowing New York's tax system, I would guess they want it to apply to me, too. I of course do not intend on paying NYS a single cent, since as far as I can tell they have no authority over me whatsoever, but IANAL.
Any tax lawyers care to comment on this?
One of the advantages of differing tax rates is I can use that as a basis for moving. This is one of the first arguments for libertarian's states should decide arguments.
He doesn't use NY roads, his kids don't use NY schools, he deosn't get to vote for NY legislators, senators or anything, he doesn't use NY public transport. Why should he pay NY tax?
PS: I am a NY resident myself.
When did taxes become a natural law? I thought that taxes were derived from the people of the area where the taxes were used for the purpose of SERVING those paying the tax. It gets kind messy when talking about the Federal Government but it's pretty easy with regards to the States. Especially when one does not reside in the state.
This is just plain wrong. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Why was this even tried in a state court? It's a case of interstate commerce...wouldn't that fall under federal jurisdiction? The fact that the state court didn't dismiss the case outright, to me, shows their bias and/or incompetence. Anybody have any insight into why a state court would hear this case?
In other words, this seems common practice and I really don't see that this hinders telecommuting unless the state of residence also attempts to tax those same wages.
Here's an interesting bill called the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act. From it:
Being taxed on his entire salary seems ridiculous to me.
I'd want them to start to have to pay for school, roads, parks, police, etc here in Arizona. That's what your lower-level (as in less than federal) taxes fund. In the case of state taxes it's all state highways, and roads on state lands, the state universities, DPS, and so on. In other words: things I and my community use.
New York helps pay for none of that, regardless of if I work for a company based there or not. Thus, I don't see any possible reason why they need the money. Arizona needs it because living here I use those services. I don't live in NY, they don't need it.
So ya, if they give me the right to vote in state elections, and start sending money back to my state to pay for things, I'll call this fair. Until then, I'm saying it's an issue for federal court.
The term "judicial activism" has been around for a lot longer than that. It was used freely during the court-ordered busing conflicts in the '70s, for example. Before my time, I suspect it was used during the school racial integration decisions in the '50s.
Generally, "activist judges" are those who seem to find new rights where they previously had not existed or been spelled out in law (ie the 'right' to gay marriage in Massachusettes, the 'right' to an abortion in the Constitution, etc.).
In this case, as the minority opinion states, the majority basically said that New York ought to be able to tax a telecommuter, without saying where the law mandates it, or citing precedent.
How does bullshit like this get modded up?
Were you born yesterday? The term "activist judge" has been around long before the Bush administration.
The judges are supposed to interpret the constitution. Period. They are not tasked with "protecting the minority from the majority" or any other purpose you dreamed up. I'd suggest reading the constitution some day. The task of protecting the minority from the tyrrany of the majority goes to the constitution and the rules set in place for amending it.
The term activist judges applies to judges who rule based on what THEY think the law should be - not on what it is. The task of amending the constitution and making laws belongs to the legislature who is elected for this specific purpose. Specific rules have been defined in the constitution for how this should be done. The judiciary is not entrusted with this responsibility.
Just because you like the decisions a particular set of judges make, doesn't make it right or constitutional.
Mmmm.. Donuts
You very clearly have no idea what you're talking about. +5 insightful means that apparently the mods are newcomers to the term activist judge as well.
An activist judge is one that, rather than ruling based on local, state, or federal laws, or on the constitution, bases his or her ruling on something else. Usually, this amounts to "because I want it to be so" or "we think it makes us look good." Gay marriage is just one of these cases. So is the taxation case that started this topic. It is not based on local, state, or federal laws, and it is not based on the state/federal constitution.
In the MA case, the judges issued a ruling REQUIRING that the state legislature write a law legalizing gay marriage. This is a very clear violation of separation of powers. The court does not have the right to write laws, any more so than the governor has a right to decide trials. Furthermore, and most importantly, no branch of government has the right to exert direct control over the activities of another. The court had no basis in the MA constitution, which it cites, for its decision. They plucked a passage from the article, and have intentionally misrepresented what was written in order to justify their agenda-based decision. (The constitution was not intented to extend marriages to gay couples - just look at who wrote it.) This is similar to a semi-recent case in which the supreme court cited laws and constitutions of other nations to justify a ruling. 'Nice try.'
the judiciary branch is increasingly the only branch of government that an average person can actually use to get anything accomplished.
No, the average person does not necessarily want the rulings of an activist judge. Gay marriage was on the ballot in 11 states in 2004. It lost in ALL of them. Very clearly the "average" person does not want it in their state. While the judiciary -- working mainly through JURIES, not judges -- is a check upon the misbehavoir of the various branches of government (including, hopefully, itself), the government still exists to serve and implement the will of the majority.
The NY case is one in which the state's tax collector egregiously overstepped its rights to taxation. The NY tc should not have jurisdiction over the monies earned via telecommuting. What's next? Charging income tax for people who route their VPN packets through NY, on their way from NH to FL? The dissenting judge is correct and I hope the case is overturned.
Taxation Without Representation
It's really that simple. I am not sure why the courts cannot understand it. Any third grader in a history lesson can understand that.
Other than having a job in Anytown, USA:
I would think that any of the founding fathers would not stand any of this ridiculousness. It was a foundation of a revolution.
Of course, I may be a little facetious, but taxation is just out of control.
Whew! I feel a little better.
Coderz 4 Life
So, do you get to vote in both states?
No taxation without representation and all that jazz...
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
I live in New Hampshire and worked for a Massachusetts company for a few years. Massachusetts siphoned off its full income tax during those years with absolutely no recourse to me because New Hampshire has no income tax. Now that doesn't for a moment mean that I don't pay tax in New Hampshire. We make up for that tax free status by having outrageous real estate taxes instead.
But do you suppose Massachusetts cares how much I pay in real estate taxes? Boohoo.
The real killer last tax year (2004) was that at least half of my income came from Florida. And because my deductions on the Massachusetts form are factored by the percentage of income from Massachusetts, they wanted even more of my money than usual. The more I earn outside of Massachusetts, the more I pay to Massachusetts in taxes. Go figure!
You may not get back as much as the full time resident but you are still using NY's infrastructure.
False. The state of New York does not own the phone lines, cables, or IT infrastructure that makes this possible. In fact, the state of New York already taxes the entities who do own these things.
You also get an benefit from telecommuting (less commuting time to office, lower property taxes, etc..).
Irrelevant and misleading. The state of New York gets a greater benefit of you not causing wear and tear on the infrastructure actually owned by the state (roads, bridges, schools, libraries, etc) while you generate revenue for a corporation based in and taxed by the state of New York, revenue which adds to the state tax coffers.
Finally, if its so wrong, why not just work in your home state (answer: you'll get a salary you'd probably never be able to get in your home state).
The point is that the person in question is working in his own state. For example, I have a friend who works for a company based in the state of New York with employees many different states. Many of those states believe (correctly, I believe) that they have the right to be compensated by means of their tax systems for the services provided to the employees of this company. It is very unlikely that many of the other states in question would be impressed by the argument that those employees are not actually working in the states in which they actually do work.
Ultimately, the questions raised by the avaricious exploitation by the state of New York of out-of-state employees of a company based in New York are a matter of interstate commerce, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government.
You cannot be taxed twice on the same income.
The problem is that common double tax situations have become entrenched in federal and state budgets. They either have to leave the double taxes as they are, on stock dividends for example, or else cut spending. Which one do you think appeals more to politicians?
All services, goods, and fees which are mandated by any government entity are counted as taxes
In a sense they already are. The government is charging money, or taxing if you will, to cover the cost of basic public services as you use them. These services generally include civil court, motor vehicle licensing, and in some states toll highways. They are just counted separately from income taxes, meaning that you pay them with after income tax money, and imposed as the circumstances dictate.
total taxes paid, including all income taxes, fees, sales taxes, etc., cannot exceed a certain percentage of your income. Anything in excess of, say 40% (though I think 20% would be more reasonable) of gross income gets refunded.
It would not be possible to implement this without maintaining massive centralized databases containing all transactions engaged in by all citizens during the course of a typical year. This would be a massive increase in government power and a serious threat to any semblance of privacy that we still have left. The IRS is bad enough and you want to increase the scope of their auditors?
a flat tax rate instead of the ridiculous graduated tax rates. (Where I can actually make more money and end up with less because my tax percentage jumps.)
This is a misconception. Even if you are just barely in the next highest tax bracket you will never lose 100% of the money that is in that highest bracket so it is impossible to end up with less than you would have had if you were still entirely in the lower bracket. At least this is how it is in the United States, however at one time in the United Kingdom this WAS true and the highest bracket was actually paying 105% of income in that bracket, but even the most hardened socialist cannot claim that was fair so they fixed it back to 90%. With regard to graduated rates a more elegant smooth curve, possibly involving the natural logarithm, would have been more elegant than the crude bracket system, but then again most citizens, including politicians, never took calculus and so if they cannot understand the system then it must be unfair...sheesh
taxes are subject to jurisdictional delineations; if you are not using the services provided by a jurisdiction, you cannot be taxed by that jurisdiction (including the Federal government if you live outside the U.S.
Taxes are paid were the income is earned irrespective of whether you live there or not and this is how it should be. That is why New York is not wrong to tax this man for income that is earned inside the state of New York. However, it would be wrong for that income to be taxed by his home state too. Generally though this isn't a problem because income taxes go into the general fund rather than into more specific funds meant to maintain roads, buildings, and other infrastructure. Those funds are usually covered by other taxes such as gas taxes, property taxes, and the like.
The inheritance tax should be abolished altogether. It is simply unconscionable.
Inheritance is income just like any other source of income. It should be taxed as income. Taxes above and beyond income, just because it is inheritance, for example are unfair and should not be levied.
Portland Oregon is a 1 million person metro area mostly in a state with no sales tax. About one quarter of the metro area is in Washington State with a 5% (I believe) sales tax and much lower state income tax.
Most people try to take advantage of this situation by residing in Washington and working in Washington State (if possible). Then they shop for durables in Oregon. Oregon's state income tax is quite high, much more so than WA. If you live in WA and work in OR, OR state makes you pay their income tax.
In a dual tax situation like this, the various governments watch everyone's financial situation closely to maximize their revenue. Everyone pays different amounts of tax. People who live in the no-sales-tax state are not required to pay sales tax on purchases of big-ticket items like cars that are bought in the sales tax state. One state has $15/yr car registration and the other has registration fees about ten times higher. There are also arrangements for college students not having to pay out-of-state tution to attend schools in the metro area that are technically out-of-state.
There aren't many metro areas that have state borders in the center of them. Kansas City, New York City, St. Louis, DC, Philly, Omaha, Cincinati. There are only two major metro areas with international borders cutting through them: El Paso and Detroit. Miami is one of the most important cities of Latin America even though it isn't actually in Latin America. It's a special case; everybody's neutral ground.
This tax situation is just going to get worse as the ultra-rich continue to pay a smaller percentage of their income to taxes through off-shore tax shelters and bribing state legislators to put specific loopholes for near individual situations into general laws. This is where someone introduces a law that no one would vote against (like making it illegal to expose your penis within 50 feet of an elementary school), and then puts a clause in the bill that would apply specifically to an individual large campaign contributor. The result of all this is that the tax burden gets shifted more each year from the rich to the middle-class.
The smarter elements of the middle class will use the internet to increasingly take advantage of offshore tax shelters on a much smaller scale. A company needs a network analyst. In the past they would hire someone to do this as an employee. In the future someone agrees to set up and maintain a network for $1500. The person sells an old Dell PC to the company for $1500. A bank in Luxembourg transfers $1500 to the network administrator's PayPal account. The network administrator uses her PayPal debit card to buy groceries and get cash-back after a day's work at the network site. The old Dell stays in the closet. No one pays tax.
This kind of thing is pretty transparent to a good government tax investigator. But when it becomes so common of a way of employment compensation that there are 100,000 cases a year for each government tax investigator, then there won't be much that the tax man can do to control it. There will always be some poor schmuck that gets slammed hard to set an example, just like the 12-year-old who gets slammed with a $150,000 fine for downloading a teen-idol pop song, but it will just be bad luck and its publicity will only increase the resolve of middle-class people to come up with new ways to not pay taxes.
Eventually all these huge budget-busting but mostly symbolic government projects like the Space Station, the BigDig, and Endless_Permanent_Middle-East_War will just be abandoned in mid-process due to lack of funds from decreasing tax revenues and the unwillingness of wealthy outsiders to lend money for some politician's wet-dream fantasy.
Someone needs to do SOMETHING about these judges making laws out of thin air.
Clearly this ruling is contrary to the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. By this court's "logic" Everyone employed by any company has to pay taxes to EVERY municipality and state that the company has a presence in.
People love to talk of the greed of corporations for money, and that talk is somewhat justified. Too little and seldom, however, is the talk of the greed of GOVERNMENTS who think they have a God given right to a "cut" of all money that flows through the economy.
When is this court going to demand income taxes from all those offshore Indian programmers that I'm sure more than one NYC basef firm employs?
In the long run, if this were to stand, and I think it won't, because federal judges, being bigger pompous asses than even state judges, won't stand for federal authority to be usurped, this tax scheme would have a DEVASTATING effect on NYC and it's economy.
Corporatism != Free Market